alles over ongeneeslijke ziektes

Living longer in good health

The Effectiveness and Cost of Lifestyle Interventions Including Nutrition Education for Diabetes Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

5 Repeated evidence

What this means for you: this is established.
Type of study
meta-analysis or systematic review
Studied in
people
Participants
not stated in the abstract
Published
2017 in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Cited
76 times by other research
Who paid
Publicly funded, as far as was declared.
Source
PubMed 28236962 · doi 10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.016
The plain-language write-up of this study is still being written. Below is the abstract exactly as the researchers published it.
Abstract by the researchers — original text

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a significant public health concern. With the completion of the Diabetes Prevention Program, there has been a proliferation of studies attempting to translate this evidence base into practice. However, the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of these adapted interventions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to synthesize the effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle diabetes prevention interventions and compare effects by intervention delivery agent (dietitian vs non-dietitian) and channel (in-person vs technology-delivered). METHODS: English and full-text research articles published up to July 2015 were identified using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, CAB Direct, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Sixty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Most employed both dietary and physical activity intervention components (four of 69 were diet-only interventions). Changes in weight, fasting and 2-hour blood glucose concentration, and hemoglobin A1c were extracted from each article. Heterogeneity was measured by the I 2 index, and study-specific effect sizes or mean differences were pooled using a random effects model when heterogeneity was confirmed. RESULTS: Participants receiving intervention with nutrition education experienced a reduction of 2.07 kg (95% CI 1.52 to 2.62; P<0.001; I 2 =90.99%, 95% CI 88.61% to 92.87%) in weight at 12 months with effect sizes over time ranging from small (0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30; P=0.012; I 2 = 86.83%, 95% CI 80.42% to 91.14%) to medium (0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82; P<0.001; I 2 =98.75%, 95% CI 98.52% to 98.94). Effect sizes for 2-hour blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c level changes ranged from small to medium. The meta-regression analysis revealed a larger relative weight loss in dietitian-delivered interventions than in those delivered by nondietitians (full sample: -1.0 kg; US subsample: -2.4 kg), and did not find statistical evidence that the delivery channel was an important predictor of weight loss. The average cost per kilogram weight loss ranged from $34.06 over 6 months to $1,005.36 over 12 months. The cost of intervention per participant delivered by dietitians was lower than interventions delivered by non-dietitians, although few studies reported costs. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing body weight and glucose-related outcomes. Dietitian-delivered interventions, compared with those delivered by other personnel, achieved greater weight reduction. No consistent trend was identified across different delivery channels.